Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750771AbWBFIlM (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750772AbWBFIlM (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:12 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:8422 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750771AbWBFIlK (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:41:10 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kirill Korotaev , Kirill Korotaev , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , frankeh@watson.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, Rik van Riel , Alexey Kuznetsov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup References: <43E38BD1.4070707@openvz.org> <43E3915A.2080000@sw.ru> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 01:39:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:49:56 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1778 Lines: 47 Linus Torvalds writes: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Kirill Korotaev wrote: >> >> Do you have any other ideas/comments on this? >> I will send additional IPC/filesystems virtualization patches a bit later. > > I think that a patch like this - particularly just the 1/5 part - makes > total sense, because regardless of any other details of virtualization, > every single scheme is going to need this. I strongly disagree with this approach. I think Al Viro got it right when he created a separate namespace for filesystems. First this presumes an all or nothing interface. But that is not what people are doing. Different people want different subsets of the functionality. For the migration work I am doing having multiple meanings for the same uid isn't interesting. Secondly by implementing this in one big chunk there is no migration path when you want to isolate an additional part of the kernel interface. So I really think an approach that allows for incremental progress that allows for different subsets of this functionality to be used is a better approach. In clone we already have a perfectly serviceable interface for that and I have seen no one refute that. I'm not sure I have seen anyone get it though. My apologies for the late reply I didn't see this thread until just a couple of minutes ago. linux-kernel can be hard to follow when you aren't cc'd. Patches hopefully sometime in the next 24hours. So hopefully conversation can be carried forward in a productive manner. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/